During the game the announcers said Mike McCarthy was planning on using James Starks on 1st and 2nd down and then Alex Green on 3rd. Where did we hear that before? I think Mike is stalking our little website! haha.

James Starks was by far the better runner yesterday, no question. But Green is worlds better on 3rd and long and pass blocking. The only time I'd want Starks in on 3rd is if it's 3rd and 3 or less to go. I feel Green has tons more potential to break one 50+, where I think the longest we'll see from Starks is 30'ish. However, I think Starks makes more out of nothing than Green and that's why I prefer Starks.

The key for the run success this week, was running up the middle more. The line can run block when they are allowed to plow forward.

I like the day Green had, the only bad run he had was the no gainer which there was nothing he could do. the only hole opened had an unbloced DT and LB waiting for him. When you add his screen play on top of his rushes.

The key for the run success this week, was running up the middle more. The line can run block when they are allowed to plow forward.

I like the day Green had, the only bad run he had was the no gainer which there was nothing he could do. the only hole opened had an unbloced DT and LB waiting for him. When you add his screen play on top of his rushes.

Sort of agreed on your first point. There is one thing that I'm sure will take into consideration is that there aren't too many DBs in the NFL who Starks will get away from in the open field. Green on the other hand is capable of busting big ones. Plus, Green is a better receiver and better blocker. Starks may be tougher to tackle, but right now, I give a slight nod to Green.

By the end of the season, if Starks proves me wrong, so be it. I'll support whomever we're playing.

During the game the announcers said Mike McCarthy was planning on using James Starks on 1st and 2nd down and then Alex Green on 3rd. Where did we hear that before? I think Mike is stalking our little website! haha.

James Starks was by far the better runner yesterday, no question. But Green is worlds better on 3rd and long and pass blocking. The only time I'd want Starks in on 3rd is if it's 3rd and 3 or less to go. I feel Green has tons more potential to break one 50+, where I think the longest we'll see from Starks is 30'ish. However, I think Starks makes more out of nothing than Green and that's why I prefer Starks.

I agree.It would be nice to be able to run it on 3rd-short instead passing.

Me too until he fumbled the ball. This seems like a risk/reward type of situation. Starks provides more talent, but is more likely to cause the negative play.

Yeah, I'd rather 2.5ish yards per carry average on 20 attempts and no fumbles than than a 4.0 ypc average and a fumble or two, at least I'm pretty sure I would. This offense has and will continue to run through Aaron Rodgers and the passing game. The running game is there for the attempts and hopefully enough yardage to keep the defense honest and allow the offensive line to tee off on the defense a bit. Obviously a better average is ideal, but most important, don't turn the damn ball over. Even if there is no running game, with the ball in Aaron Rodgers hands, the Packers always have a chance. Allow Starks or Green to fumble the ball away and the opposing team to keep Rodgers off the field for extended periods of time is a recipe for disaster for the packers.

"McCarthy said the Packers will let “next week tell us the story” about how the team will proceed with platooning running backs James Starks and Alex Green in the backfield, but it sounded promising that Starks will continue to see an expanded role on offense."

James Starks, hasn't had ball security issues before, so hopefully it doesn't become one now and it looks like he'll get more playing time. Of course, unless he puts the ball on the turf again.

"McCarthy said the Packers will let “next week tell us the story” about how the team will proceed with platooning running backs James Starks and Alex Green in the backfield, but it sounded promising that Starks will continue to see an expanded role on offense."

James Starks, hasn't had ball security issues before, so hopefully it doesn't become one now and it looks like he'll get more playing time. Of course, unless he puts the ball on the turf again.

One of them will get injured.

Meantime, the Packers will platoon them based on matchups.

If one of them gets injured too badly, they might even make Grant a lowball offer.

Well, if Starks doesn't have the motivation to stay on the field and produce with Green nipping at his heals.. then this might be the last stand he has in Green Bay.
Mike McCarthy has done all but color him a picture... want reps stay on the field you candy ass.

I've been critical of Green, but that one article explained alot to me. He's actually got a pretty good per carry average, except when he tries to run behind Newhouse and Land. Makes alot more sense now.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

gbguy20 (9-Feb) : or get him to take a team friendly number now while promising him a massive marketing contract in retirement to make up for it

gbguy20 (9-Feb) : jimmy g set the record after 7 starts. you really think Rodgers value goes down? sign him now and make it cap friendly for the next 2 years. get him for 28.5 per now instead of 34 per year a year or 2

Zero2Cool (9-Feb) : He has multiple years left, he can wait until final year, like the process goes

Zero2Cool (9-Feb) : he didn't play like a Superstar vs Panthers, he doesn't deserve new deal.

Porforis (9-Feb) : This assumes Rodgers continues to play like a superstar and doesn't miss additional seasons, lowering his value entering the mid to tail end of his career.